What would we do? Admittedly the death-toll would probably have been considerably lower, but would there be the debate about what to replace her with that there is now with the WTC? Would we have been more or less outraged or about the same?
Well, if we knew that the alternative to the Statue was the WTC, we might have been relieved. I know that I was thinking that I would’ve have preferred the Statue wouold have been the target, because the death toll would have been so much less, even though it would have been more symbolic to a great many people.
We’d just call up the French and order another one. And feel grateful that the terrorists’ tactical brilliance was coupled with strategic weakness (an obsession with symbols).
The lost productivity in lower Manhattan for the month of September alone probably would have paid for another Statue of Liberty. It would have been an insulting blow, sure, but less significant than that loss of lives on the two planes.
Of course, we would have executed every Afgani in a 100 mile radius around Afganistan, none of this “targeting” or “aiming” I keep hearing about.
And quite possibly begin the systematic extermination of Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Iraq therafter.
Why do you think that, Smiling Bandit? I fail to see how every Afghan, Saudi Arabian, Palestinian and Iraqi could be responsible. I would also be saddened if the destruction of a symbol – however important – resulted in more severe action than the loss of thousands of human lives.
Since the statue of liberty stands for the very things that this country is based on, I imaging that there would still be much outrage, but it would be slightly different. Lady Liberty is one of the first things that the immigrants saw when then traveled to this country long ago. She stands for liberty and justice. An attack on the Statue of Liberty is an attack on the very thing that we as Americans stand for. It’s like some jealous bully breaking your prized, autographed baseball bat as a kid.
I think we would be horribly angry, but I doubt that it would have resulted in a war or even, any return attacks. The ideal situation in that event would be for us to stand together, work together and bring up another symbol of our truths and ideals.
It would have been a more controlled strike, if the casualties had been low or non-existent. If a class full of kids had been inside it probably would have been the same.
I’ll assume that this scenario still relies on a hijacked aircraft (the simplest attack method), and has the Statue as the only target --No Pentagon or Flight 93
On an average day, there would probably have been dozens of tourists in the Statue who would have died, as well as the casualties in the plane. While it would have been over more abruptly than the WTC, and thus lacked the cumulative emotional impact of watching the carnage unfold live on CNN, I still think that the symbolism, together with scores of dead at foreign hands on American soil, would have elicited about the same response.
A bigger question mark, to my mind, hangs over another possibility. I had heard that certain Al Qaeda captives had indicated that there had been a plan to crash multiple aircraft into predominantly Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn and elsewhere. If September 11th had been clearly symbolically targeted as an attack on “The Jews” rather than on “America” (even though there would have been numerous individual victims of a variety of races and creeds in any event), then might it have been more destructive an attack in many ways?
Would there have been quite the same sense of national unity after the attacks if there was room for some to depict the events as an attack on “Them” rather than “Us”. Given the feelings that smoldered in the background during the policy debates that accompanied the Israeli crackdowns on the West Bank, would there have been much more intense and destructive posturing if it were easier for those of a certain mindset to claim that it was “the Jews who brought this down on our heads” (inspiring memories of the pogroms that sometimes accompanied Plague outbreaks)? Any foreign attack on our soil would likely have run pretty much the same course as this one, but an attack specifically targeted at our differences may have been more useful to our enemies in the long run.
Oh, you don’t get it.
I would have killed them all for it. Guilty, inncoent - all the same to me.
Just one more corpse.
They’d have been toasting in the sun from Kandahar to Bagdad.
That’s awfully well reasoned, smiling bandit.
Really?
Children, too, I assume. Let’s face it, if somebody looks like a terrorist, that’s a good enough reason to kill them. Makes sense to me.
Tell you what, I think we should kill every white American, too. After all, they look like Germans–hell, many of them ARE Germans–and, because the Germans killed millions of people in concentration camps, it’s our duty to kill ourselves.
I don’t think the Ghostbusters had enough of that pink slime to accomplish that.
In regards to Smiling Bandit DNFTT
Thats it, carry on.
smiling bandit: If Tim McVeigh had bombed the Statue of Liberty, would you kill every white person from LA to Moscow?
What does “DNFTT” mean?
DNFTT means “Do Not Feed The Troll.” Don’t give them any attention and just move on.
There was a reason they attacked the WTC
[tangent]
BTW I was at world financial center the last few days and could look right into the big pit. It amazed me how big the pit was and how small construction vechicles looked then I realized that I was only really looking at 1/2 of it as the other 1/2 was behind a subway tunnel.[/tanget]
The WTC embodied exactly what they didn’t stand for - capitalism in glorious action. It was both a symbol and a center for commerce for the free world. I really don’t think they would have attacked the SoL (that doesn’t look right).
If they did I would expect it to be rebuilt and war properly declared (actually when you are attacked you don’t need to declare war anyway) - just as it was. Both would have been an attack on our soil and a strong millitary response would be needed.
I might start a thread on this latter by I leave it as a hijack (poor pun - not avoidable). I started out calling this an attrocity when people called it a tradegy. Now most have settled on an attack which it what I consider it. At 1st I though of this as a sneek attack but after some thought I realise that these bastards have declared war on us a long time ago. We just didn’t realize they were capable of doing anything to us. We were wrong. We prefered to play political games then properly respond with force when they (the bastards - no correct that I don’t want to insult bastards, make that scumbags) bombed the WTC the 1st time and when the USS Cole was attacked along with some of our millitary based.
This should have never gotten out of hand like it did. we were warned and the enemy has shown they are capable of inflicting damage - we were just blinded by our status of superpower and the once shiny but now old rusty sheild that the oceans provide.
War is never fun but just closing our eyes to such an obvious threat and pretending that everything is ok is just foolishness.
An outsider’s view…
The attack on the WTC was an attack on capitalism and democracy. It was an attack on many countries, “ambassadors” of which were conveniently located in one area.
An attack on the Statue of Liberty would, in my eyes, have been an attack on America only. The US would have support and sympathy from its allies, but I can’t help thinking that there would also have been more of an element of “Maybe the US brought this upon itself”.
What do other non-US people think?
Good point, Umbriel, there is often that tendency to scapegoat, to try to prove that it couldn’t happen to you because you’re not “different.” You strike fear into people’s hearts when you do something that could hurt anyone. It’s like when the AIDS virus first started out- people thought of it as a disease that only gay people got. There’s always that tendency to believe oneself immune.
Back to the Statue of Liberty. That feels even more weird. I know, it’s strange to say that the world trade center isn’t here anymore…but it’s even more weird to think of the Statue of Liberty as just being a thing of the past. Maybe it’s more personal because it’s a statue, but that just feels odd. It’s a monument, like the Eiffel Tower. So was the WTC, I know, but I guess a monument has that extra special feeling. So from an emotional standpoint, it might have had the edge. However, more practically, it would have been a lot better to lose the Statue than to lose all those people, as well as the financial blow.
Not at 9:00 in the morning, there wouldn’t. The park grounds don’t open until then. It would probably have been empty, except for Park Service employees.